knowledge transfer between researchers and practitioners in sucozoma

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Knowledge Transfer between Researchers and Practitioners in SUCOZOMAAuthor(s): Anders CarlbergSource: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(2):176-180. 2005.Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.176URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.176

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.176

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.176

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005http://www.ambio.kva.se

176 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 2, March 2005

Knowledge Transfer between Researchers and Practitioners in SUCOZOMA

Anders Carlberg

A primary aim of the SUCOZOMA research program has been the transfer of knowledge from the scientific com-munity to research users. This paper describes the in-tentions and ambitions regarding knowledge transfer within the program, reflecting the aim of its financier, the Swedish Foundation of Strategic Environmental Re-search, but also a general trend within research policy. The study investigates the areas in which SUCOZOMA has actively tried to transfer knowledge, reaching out to management and different practitioners. Many ex-amples of communication and participation of research users in the program are described. The paper also identifies the bottlenecks and limits to communication.

VALUE FOR MONEYThe goals of the SUCOZOMA program have not been lim-ited to the production of scientific results, distributed for peer review and analyzed according to academic criteria. The program proposal and deliveries have also been evalu-ated from the point of view of knowledge transfer to the users of scientific results. It is stated in the mission statement that “SUCOZOMAS’s role in this process is to provide new inte-grated coastal zone management (ICZM) related knowledge for coastal managers” (1). Consequently, considerable efforts have been made to establish cooperation and communication with practitioners who will find the results useful, interesting, and of practical relevance. Generally speaking, “the usefulness criterion” has become increasingly important as an instrument for selection of re-search proposals for financial support. At the European level the EU-framework program for research emphasizes that re-search is an EU-policy field with the overarching goal of con-tributing to European growth and competitiveness. Research projects that involve not just scientific partners but also in-dustrial contributors, whose primary role is to integrate re-search results within production, are ranked higher than pure academic proposals, all other things being equal. Similarly, the Swedish parliament has identified research priorities ac-cording to socioeconomic goals, including the strengthening of economic sectors where Sweden already has a competitive edge in relation to other economies, or has the potential to develop such an advantage. The reason for this stress on the usefulness of science is that a considerable part of the research budget is paid by the taxpay-ers. The effectiveness of state-financed research is a concern similar to that of other budget sectors, which are subject to de-mands for effective use of public resources. In Sweden, where publicly financed research is among the highest in the OECD, critical questions proposing alternative uses of taxes have been formulated in the political debate, pressuring responsible gov-

ernment agencies to introduce “the usefulness criterion” in the selection of new research projects.

USEFULNESS: TOP PRIORITY FOR MISTRAFrom the very outset, the Swedish Foundation of Strategic En-vironmental Research (Mistra), which finances SUCOZOMA, has given usefulness top priority. Mistra’s statutes demand that the research it finances “shall contribute to the solution of grave environmental problems and to a development of society, which is environmentally adapted.” Mistra uses four criteria in its selection of research proposals. One of them is the above-mentioned “relevance for the development of a society which is environmentally adapted” and the second one is “practical usefulness”. Science for the sake of knowledge as such is not a Mistra priority.In a recent report to the Minister of Research and Education, Mistra offers the government advice for the writing of its re-search bill (2). The core concept in the report is “user value”. “User value” is the focal point for Mistra in its evaluation of research proposals, and it may be defined in terms of commer-cial usability and usefulness as a base for international envi-ronmental negotiations. User value can also be understood as the contribution to a better, more effective management of dis-puted natural resources—a definition which is highly relevant for the SUCOZOMA program. With the utility of science as a primary concern, Mistra also demands and expects the participating research groups to make this criterion operational, generating concrete results. Mistra rec-ommends the writers of the proposal to design the proposal “in an intimate dialogue between researchers and potential users of the research results”. Moreover, in the proposal, which is submitted for final approval a plan for the dissemination and implementation of research results (literally, “a specific plan for the practical use of the results”) should be included. The plan should be based on defined activities, which can be evaluated (3). The “specific plan for the practical use of the results” is ac-tually the document specifying knowledge transfer within SU-COZOMA. The plan deals with central aspects of this transfer. However, there are many instances in the full course of the program, which represent actual exchange of knowledge, that evades planning and long-term preparation. Instead they oc-cur spontaneously, unexpectedly and require ad hoc reactions. However, the requirement of a specific plan for knowledge transfer bears witness to Mistra’s ambition in the field. Although knowledge transfer was an important goal in the first phase of the program (1997–2000), it was agreed that this period primarily dealt with the constitution of functioning re-search teams, which proved their ability to work together and deliver results. There was an understanding that the actual contributions to an environmentally adapted society should be expected mostly during the second phase. In the second phase a “communication strategy” was developed as part of the pro-


Ambio Vol. 34, No. 2, March 2005 177

gram plan and submitted to Mistra for approval. A distinction was made in the plan between information and communica-tion: “Information is a necessary aspect of communication but it is not sufficient. The strategy has to contain central elements of dialogue and follow-up with regard to the effects of the dis-semination of the results from the program.”

THE SUCOZOMA COMMUNICATION STRATEGYThe SUCOZOMA communication strategy was defined and carried out in steps. Firstly the target groups, “the partners of communication”, were defined. Secondly, a mission from the program, motivating their interest, was formulated for each target group. Thirdly, the types of research information that are of particular interest to each target group was defined. Fi-nally, modes of communication were developed and channels of communication were established. In the first step, “coastal municipalities […], regional and national agencies and decision-makers with a bearing on the coast” were identified. The target groups “fisheries organiza-tions and coastal entrepreneurs” were also mentioned explic-itly. Secondly, the communication strategy refers to the mis-sion statement of the program where it is clearly stated that the management and the researchers of the program should work directly with the practitioners, providing them with relevant knowledge. Thirdly, the communication strategy proposed that the research deliveries of the program should be the basis for communication activities. Although adaptation and revision of the deliverables may be necessary in order for them to be of use for coastal managers and users of coastal resources, they nevertheless are the substance for communication. Finally, the communication strategy planned a number of “instruments for communication” including an Internet website, popularized annual report, seminars with invited participants representing target groups and, not least importantly, personal meetings. For public communication the program deliverables labelled as “syntheses” played a crucial role. In these, knowledge gener-ated not only in different SUCOZOMA projects but also in other relevant research was brought together in a common framework. These integrated reports provided a broad and knowledge-based perspective, with a consistent problem-solving approach on en-vironmental imbalances of strategic importance. It was also emphasized in the program plan that user com-munication is not a one-way monologue. On the contrary, the ambition has been to involve research users in the design of the program and its formulation of problems and goals, i.e. prior to the start of the program and not just as it is beginning to bear fruit. The dissemination of results, in this perspective, becomes a “return call” in which the program reports back to the re-search user who first requested a solution to a specific problem involving environmental quality or natural resource use. In the idealized model communication strategy of a Mistra program, researchers and research users have ongoing communication throughout the course of the program.

COMMUNICATION: MANAGEMENT PRIORITYIn a Mistra program the organization of research is of decisive importance for the accomplishment of the deliverables and goals of the program. Mistra puts strong emphasis on the man-agement and leadership of the program, not least in the field of knowledge transfer. This would be particularly true for SUCO-ZOMA and similar programs where there is no organized coun-terpart, to engage in representative dialogue with the coastal researchers. The main challenge of finding a counterpart con-

cerns coastal recreation, which is a growing sector in terms of natural resource use. In Sweden, the tradition of second homes in the countryside remains strong, and the demand for recre-ational living along the coast, especially within commuting distance to urban centers, is probably the most marked trend (4). However, coastal recreation dwellers are an elusive target group lacking in organized representation. The SUCOZOMA program management therefore had to identify organizations and representatives, which could function as spokespeople for this stakeholder category of primary interest. In SUCOZOMA, as in most other Mistra programs user groups have been given formal functions in the program. The SUCOZOMA Board has been dominated by user interests and a stakeholder advisory committee has also been formed in or-der to involve additional interest groups. Representatives of re-gional and local government had seats on the Board, as well as an expert from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Interest groups such as the archipelago association and the fishermen’s federation were also part of the Board. In ad-dition, a senior researcher who was not an active participant in any of the projects, represented academia on the Board. In the advisory committee, which complemented the Board, there were active participants from the angler’s association, from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Ministry of the Environment. The purpose of this broad and direct participa-tion of stakeholders in the program management, was to im-prove the possibilities for knowledge and knowledge transfer to research users. In the course of the program SUCOZOMA had its most fre-quent contacts with coastal users representing government and the public domain. Contacts with private companies, organiza-tions and individuals were less common and regular. The recre-ational interest, mentioned above, constitutes a large proportion of the Swedish population, yet owners of summer homes were never directly represented. Instead their concerns were suppos-edly put forward by regional and county agencies, politicians on different levels of government, the anglers association and other NGOs representing the recreational activities. However, in a country like Sweden, where management of coastal natural resources is less directed by free-market and laissez-faire forces than by government, it could be argued that it is rational to pri-marily address public agencies and politicians.

ICZM PILOT PROJECTS: EXAMPLE OF SUCOZOMA KNOWLEDGE TRANSFERThere are many examples of knowledge transfer from the sev-en-year course of the program. Coinciding with the political interest in issues of sustainability with respect to the coastal zone the policy initiatives in this field became an interesting area of communication for SUCOZOMA. The coastal zone is not only heavily populated in many countries and regions, but is also an ecological zone inherently rich in diversity and bio-logical productivity, and thus vulnerable to exploitation and mismanagement. SUCOZOMA, with its interdisciplinary per-spective and focus on conflicting resource use interests, was able to deliver not just research results but also to identify the central obstacles to integration and long-term sustainability. In the EU, as well as in Sweden, major pilot studies and action programs were set up to develop frameworks for inte-grated and sustainable coastal zone management (5). Repre-sentatives of SUCOZOMA management as well as researchers took part in these processes. SUCOZOMA researchers were consulted as experts in the Swedish project and asked to par-ticipate in working groups. The program director and co-direc-



tors of the program submitted a special report evaluating the preliminary conclusion of the government project, underlining aspects which they felt were missing in the archipelago study. In the EU demonstration program SUCOZOMA played a more marginal and indirect role. The program management alerted the EU-commission about the existence of the Swed-ish research program, which shared many relatin to of the dilemmas of growth and conservation with the EU program. SUCOZOMA underlined that the two activities also had the integrated multidisciplinary approach and the conviction that sustainable management must be knowledge-based, in com-mon. However, there was no active Swedish participation in the EU project—despite the Swedish interest reflected in the ambitious archipelago-project being carried out at approxi-mately the same time. The Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies representing Sweden in the Commission in these matters made no attempt to promote the knowledge transfer that supposedly could have taken place between SU-COZOMA and the demonstration program. Instead the SUCO-ZOMA program had to limit itself to submitting a formal com-ment regarding some issues in the European ICZM program that were relevant to SUCOZOMA research. Independent evaluation of the demonstration program, contracted by the Commission, was done entirely without the assistance of SUCOZOMA researchers, which in itself is a testimony that knowledge transfer is only partly about the relevance and the quality of the knowledge offered. It is even more important that the mechanisms allowing for transfer to take place exist in the first place.

SUCOZOMA KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER TO THE COMMISSION ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENTDuring the second phase of the SUCOZOMA program the Swed-ish cabinet decided to set up a Commission on the Marine Envi-ronment. The reason for the Commission was the unsatisfactory environmental status of the seas and coastal areas surrounding Sweden. Unlike most other environmental areas it appeared that the status of the marine environment was not improving. The Commission’s work was divided into different thematic areas, largely reflecting the organization of SUCOZOMA with one ex-pert group dealing with fisheries, another one with nutrients and eutrophication, and a group of researchers and experts taking a socioeconomic approach to the problems of the marine envi-ronment. Furthermore the Commission also shared with SUCO-ZOMA the intention to involve the stakeholders in the process, by inviting them to discussions on the marine environment. At these meetings they were strongly encouraged to put forward their views and experiences but also to share the Commission’s view on, e.g. ecosystem analysis and the specific problems as-sociated with natural resources administered as commons (6). Researchers from the SUCOZOMA program contributed very actively to the Commission on the marine environment. Researchers participated as formal or informal experts in dif-ferent thematic groups and were also invited to several hearings and workshops to share their views on the management prac-tices and instruments that need to be developed. Written views were also presented. Several of the recommendations from the Commission also resemble those that emerged from the SU-COZOMA research projects, for example, recommendations for improved integration between different agencies whose re-sponsibilities for coastal resources are currently sectorized. The Commission as well as SUCOZOMA also favor introduction of knowledge-based adaptive management in the coastal zone.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN COASTAL FISHERIESMany of SUCOZOMA’s research projects dealt with the devel-opment of sustainable coastal fisheries. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that this is the field where we see most of the involve-ment of researchers with direct knowledge transfer, especially of a practical applied character. In the fisheries sector there are many examples of interaction between SUCOZOMA research-ers and managers and practitioners. In most of these transfer projects and events there was a dis-tinct “SUCOZOMA message”; that fisheries should be seen in the context of both conservation and exploitation, as a valuable recreational activity but also as a profession and a coastal busi-ness sector with claims on profitability. Underlying these legiti-mate concerns however is the need for a management system with a robust incentive for sustainable exploitation and respon-sible practices, according to this primary conclusion of SUCO-ZOMA. In the program, fisheries research was conducted within both social science and natural science projects. The natural science projects often depended on the participation of local fishermen and their organizations. Thus, the research activities in them-selves are examples of knowledge transfer, albeit to a limited group of practitioners. As many researchers in SUCOZOMA’s fish research projects were employed and working in the research-institutes of the Na-tional Board of Fisheries they had a special capacity, being civil servants as well as scientists; to influence and implement from within the main management organization. In its contacts with policymakers, government experts and agencies SUCOZOMA presented two main approaches to the issue of the mismanagement of the fishery resources. The most important message, substantiated by findings in many projects, was to underline the lack of legitimacy, at the local level, of the present system and, consequently, to involve lo-cal stakeholders in a reformed management system. There was also an important focus on the marine resource as common property giving rise to externalities. Several research teams studied the opportunities and prob-lems inherent in local management with greater stakeholder in-volvement. There is ample evidence of the influence of these results in the government report and the subsequent bill on coastal fisheries (7). Local management has been recognized as the most viable venue in the reform of coastal fisheries manage-ment. Power, but also responsibility, should be transferred from the national agency to local and regional councils of fishermen and other stakeholders. Following the bill the Swedish Parlia-ment (Riksdag) decided that the institutional, socioeconomic and biological conditions for local management should be stud-ied in pilot-projects. According to the instructions for the pilot project, the county government should provide the public plat-form where the stakeholders should meet for this form of decen-tralized decision-making. In the years to come, the evaluation of these will be used as a basis for new legislation, allowing for decentralized decision-making with stronger influence for local fisheries organizations and other stakeholder categories. The National Board of Fisheries, which is responsible for the pilot projects, has expressed an interest in using experienced SUCO-ZOMA researchers as consultants in the design and evaluation of the projects. SUCOZOMA has obviously played an important role in this shift in fishery policy. Locally and regionally, SUCOZOMA researchers have been actively involved in the planning and set-up of several fishery projects. The most well known example is the proj-ect named after the two west coast fjords, Kosterfjorden and Väderöfjorden. The significance of this event is that local


Ambio Vol. 34, No. 2, March 2005 179

fishermen and managers from the regional government as well as sector agencies for fisheries and nature conservation, re-spectively, reached an accord between the conflicting interest in this coastal area (8). SUCOZOMA participants have also made active contributions to development strategies of coastal regions. So far they have not resulted in a transfer of power from the central level to the regions but these documents con-stitute the platforms from which regional and local initiatives are processed (9). The issue of property rights in fishing has also been stud-ied in SUCOZOMA. The traditional economist perspective to the chronic mismanagement of fish-stocks has been to identify the lack of property rights as the missing link stand-ing in the way of optimal production and a level of catches, which is economically and ecologically sustainable. In SU-COZOMA pioneering research has been conducted on the form of private ownership, which is based on private fish-ing rights, an institution which is standard practice on large parts of the Swedish east coast. This resulted in a large-scale zoning project in the Stockholm archipelago, with extensive protection of fish in reproductive phases. The project was carried out in co-operation with the local anglers and fisher-men’s organizations and the regional government of Stock-holm. SUCOZOMA research in this field and in the areas of common property, which is typical for most marine areas in-cluding the Swedish west coast, has also attracted important attention among experts and academicians (10, 11). It is noteworthy that the Commission on the Marine En-vironment chooses not to investigate the potential and lim-its of property rights issues. Likewise, the abovementioned government report on coastal fisheries only briefly discusses alternatives to the system of relatively free access. Swedish policy initiatives on the marine environment appear not to be ready to analyze opportunities for and implications of a property-rights-based system in Sweden. This is a particular concern for the east coast where the coastal fish-resources are largely privately owned yet only passively managed. They lack and are thus in need of comprehensive and effec-tive management strategies and instruments.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTAnother major area with several ongoing political and ad-ministrative processes of strong relevance for SUCOZOMA concerns water quality management. Throughout the whole program there has been close cooperation between the man-agement of the sewage plant which caters to south Stock-holm, and thus a direct transfer of knowledge and results from researchers to managers, and vice versa. Moreover, the research team has been closely involved in the planning and set-up of the water management organization of the Stock-holm county and neighboring areas (12). SUCOZOMA coincided with the implementation of the European Water Framework directive. The Swedish En-vironmental Protection Agency is the government agency responsible for the assimilation of the directive with Swed-ish laws and regulations. Common to the Directive and to SUCOZOMA is the ambition to integrate coastal manage-ment with the management of the drainage areas as well as with the management of marine and ocean resources. In the second phase of the program, SUCOZOMA has had several meetings with Swedish EPA experts with the purpose of de-scribing findings and useful approaches to the challenge of applying the directive to Swedish coastal areas (13).

The cultivation of blue mussels as a means of improving wa-ter quality as well as producing seafood, has also been studied in the program during the entire period (14). The findings have been reported continually to different user groups. Interest has been considerable among coastal municipalities. They regard mussel cultivation as a complement to investment in nutrient-reduction measures in local sewage plants. With the support of SUCOZOMA researchers municipalities have shown that the effect on the marine environment through reduced eutrophica-tion will be equal or greater through mussel farms than with conventional water cleaning measures in the sewage plants. One municipality, Lysekil, has actually applied for the estab-lishment of mussel farms as a substitute for further investments in the sewage plants, arguing that the net effect will be the same but the cost will be considerably lower (15).

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER THROUGH APPLIED PROJECTSSUCOZOMA has resulted in several new projects, funded and organized outside the Mistra program. The applied projects have had the explicit purpose of knowledge transfer from sci-ence to user groups. One example of this form of direct application of SUCO-ZOMA research is the project area that focuses on the devel-opment of fishing equipment, which can withstand attacks from seals. This led to the production of prototypes which have since been commercially introduced (16). Similarly, the research on restoration of fishery spawning grounds led to a practically applied project with a checklist of practical information distributed to municipalities. The project was financed by the National Board of Fisheries, and involved municipal agencies in the Stockholm archipelago (17). Simi-larly, the county administration of the Baltic island of Got-land took an active interest in SUCOZOMA research. Based on the observation that restoration of spawning grounds can improve migration of sea trout with up to 350%, the admin-istration changed its regulations for sea trout management in the streams of the island. The project also involved the active participation of recreational fishermen (18). Cooperation with local fisheries has been a priority of SUCOZOMA. Another example of cooperation, which ben-efited the development of local fisheries, is the web-site, which has been set up by a SUCOZOMA researcher in or-der to stimulate further activity among the owners of private fishing rights in the Östhammar archipelago. The web-site is used for communication and voluntary catch reports. Sup-posedly, the resulting database will be of importance in the management of this local fishery (19). In 1999, a Fisheries Technology Centre, located at Tjärnö Marine Biological Laboratory, was started with the purpose of putting some of the results of phase one of the program into practice. The Centre worked closely with local fishermen on the Swedish west coast and focussed on the development of new gear as well as the introduction of new species in commer-cial fisheries. Besides the professional fishermen the Centre also cooperated with representatives of sales, distribution, and restaurants, all specializing in fish (20). The Fisheries Technology Centre operated for two years with financial backing from the funds for fisheries develop-ment available within the European Union. A network of partners emerged as an off-shot to the Centre, with a com-mon interest in developing crab fishery. They formed the west coast crab project. Again the project based its biological understanding on results from SUCOZOMA research proj-



ects, specifically a study of the biological limitations of local management of crab stocks, located at Tjärnö Marine Bio-logical Laboratory. The project was initiated and eventually operated by the fishermen’s organization, SVC (21).

USER VALUE IN SUCOZOMA AND LESSONS LEARNTThe final evaluation of SUCOZOMA’s value for user groups must be done at a later stage when the whole range of results and their application can be analyzed as a whole. At this point we may conclude that each and every project connected itself to a network of partners whose main concerns were the prac-tical application of research results. On the program level the management group has briefed representatives of interest groups continuously. This has taken place within the frame-work of the Board, the advisory committee or with meet-ings of agency or interest groups' representatives. However, a critical perspective is also called for. Despite these efforts and achievements there have been three major obstacles to effective knowledge transfer:i) lack of funding for applied follow-up projects;ii) lack of organization and contacts with science among user

groups for transfer purposes;iii) the agenda and priorities of user groups. The most important point is the last one. Were user groups to put the introduction of new, research generated knowledge at the top of their agenda, the transfer of results from the research sector to businesses and management organization would definitely improve. Instead it is our experience that research user groups often have different strategies for in-creased competitiveness, profitability and sustainability than the one formulated by research policy agencies. At times, however, interests overlap. It has been SUCOZOMA’s ob-jective to be in touch with numerous user groups, includ-ing groups, which are less experienced in communication with scientists, in order to be present when opportunities for effective cooperation and knowledge transfer emerged. As possibilities appeared SUCOZOMA could point out the po-tential and stimulate the exchange. Future research in this area that has the ambition not just to understand and analyze the problems but to actually promote change through transfer of knowledge, must be ready to de-vote more resources to actually improving the conditions for result-oriented communication among researchers as well as research users. In order for major changes to occur, substan-tial benefits and compensation must be connected to transfer and the implementation of knowledge as such. At present, researchers are not highly rewarded for putting knowledge into practical use, nor is a research user directly compen-sated for transferring knowledge from the scientific state into practical format. Mistra and other research financers, who believe the usefulness of research is of primary importance, have a significant role to play in stimulating these creative exchanges, but they must also realize the challenge involved. From the SUCOZOMA experience it can be concluded that higher priority should be given to those functions which are vital, in order to accomplish more than just contacts between researchers and users, namely actual transfer and practical implementation.

References and Notes

1. The SUCOZOMA Program Plan, November 2000. www.sucozoma.tmbl.gu.se2. Letter to the Swedish Ministry of Education. 2004. Some Mistra Experiences which

Might be of Interest to the Government in its Work with a New Bill on Research-policy. (In Swedish).

3. Vägvisaren (The Road map). 2004. www.mistra.org. (In Swedish).4. According to the Swedish national rural development agency the most rapid in-

crease in rural property prices is found in coastal areas.5. In the European Union, the demonstration program on integrated coastal zone man-

agement – involving 35 pilot surveys and several thematic studies – was started in 1995 and has recently been evaluated. In Sweden a management program for archi-pelago-areas was initiated by the government but carried out on local and regional level, organized by county administrations. For further information, see the govern-ment report: SOU 2000:67. Levande Skärgård – Utvärdering av de Regionala Miljö- och Hushållningsprogramn. (Living Archipelago – evaluation of the regional envi-ronment- and management plans). Swedish Environmental Advisory Council.(In Swedish).

6. Havet – Tid för en Ny Strategi. 2003. (The Sea – Time for a New Strategy). the final report of the Commisson on the marine environment, SOU 2003:72. (In Swedish with English summary).

7. The National Board of Fisheries. 2001. Småskaligt Kustfiske och Insjöfiske – en Analys. (Artisinal Fishery- an Analysis). The bill Kust- och insjöfiske samt vat-tenbruk (Artisinal Fishery and Aquaculture), Regeringens proposition 2003/04:5. (In Swedish).

8. Degnbol, P. (Ed.). 2003. TemaNord 2003. Integrating Fisheries and Environmental Policies: the Nordic Experiences and the CFP. The Nordic Council of Ministries. No. 521.

9. SUCOZOMA reseachers have been approached and involved in several inititives, often by representatives of municipalities or county governments. Financial sup-port for the project ideas has been available through the access of different EU-funds. Areas where this has taken place include the Stockholm and Östhammar archipelagoes, the island of Gotland, the coast of Halland and Hakefjorden.

10. Brady, M. 2004. Fiske i framtiden – Hur förvalta en gemensam naturresurs? (Fish-eries in the Future – How to Manage a Common Resource?). Livsmedelsekono-miska Institutet, rapport 2004:54 (In Swedish).

11. Duer Pedersen, J. 1997. Integreret Kystzoneforvaltning som Tema for et Nordisk Fiskeriforskningssamarbejde. (Integrated Coastal Zone Management as a Theme in Nordic Cooperation in Fishery Research). Institut for Fiskeriforvaltning og Kystsamfundsudvikling, Endelig rapport, (In Danish).

12. SUCOZOMA partners 2004. www.syvab.se and www.svealand.se13. Edebo, L., Haamer, J., Lindahl, O., Loo, L.O. and Piriz, L. 2000. Recycling of

macronutrients from sea to land using mussel cultivation. Int. J. Environ. Poll. 13 (1-3).

14. Bendix, B. 2003. Musslor skall Ge nya Jobb och Renare Vatten, (New Jobs and Cleaner Water from Mussles). Göteborgs Posten May 28 2003. (In Swedish).

15. Elmgren, R. Gipperth, L. 2002. Ramdirektivet för vatten och kusten – möjligheter och farhågor, (The EU Water Framework Directive and the coast – opportunities and misgivings). Årsrapport 2002. Forskningsprogramt SUCOZOMA, 2003. The English translation can be found on the website:

http://www.sucozoma.tmbl.gu.se/pdf/rapport02EN.pdf16. Sandquist, A. 2004. Pushup-fällan ger fiskarna framtidshopp.(The Push-Up Trap

Raises Hopes for the Future). The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. MiljöAktuellt, 6-7, (In Swedish)

17. Karås, P. 1999. Rekryteringsmiljöer för kustbestånd av aborre, gädda och gös (Re-cruitment areas for stocks of perch, pike and pikeperch in the Baltic.) Fiskeriverket Rapport 1999:6. (In Swedish with English summary).

18. Landergren, P. 2001 Sea Trout, Salmo trutta L., in Small Streams on Gotland; the Coastal Zone as a Growth Habitat for Parr. Department of systems ecology, Stockholm university.

19. The web-site for the Östhammar fishery was set up by the late SUCOZOMA re-searcher and fishery biologist of the Institute of Coastal Research, Gunnar Thores-son.

20. Carlberg, A. 2002. Forskningens betydelse för miljöarbetet vid kust och hav – er-farenheter från SUCOZOMA programt (The importance of science for environ-mental work on the coast and the sea – experience gained from the SUCOZOMA program). Vatten 58, 45-52. (In Swedish with English summary).

21. Fisket – viktigt för kustutvecklingen. (Fisheries – important for coastal develop-ment). 2004. Editorial in Yrkesfiskaren nr 12, 2004. (In Swedish)

Anders Carlberg was program director of the SU-COZOMA program between June 1998 April 2004. Between 1985 and 2004 he worked as the DIrec-tor of the Västerhavet Association, and since May 2004 he is employed by the Swedish Fishermen's Association. Academically, he is trained in eco-nomics and has also worked as the program direc-tor for the MASTEC program focusing on marine biofouling. His address: Sveriges Fiskares Riks-förbund, Amerikaskjulet, Uppgång G, SE-414 63 Göteborg, [email protected]

knowledge transfer between researchers and practitioners in sucozoma

Documents